Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

As another draft is nearly upon us, I'm reminded of those hilarious generic player evaluations we hear every year.

Some of my favorites:

 

"plays with great leverage"

 

"pursues to the ball well"

 

"has all the physical tools" (my all-time favorite)

 

Other favorites fellow draftniks?

  • Replies 41
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
As another draft is nearly upon us, I'm reminded of those hilarious generic player evaluations we hear every year.

Some of my favorites:

 

"plays with great leverage"

 

"pursues to the ball well"

 

"has all the physical tools" (my all-time favorite)

 

Other favorites fellow draftniks?

 

"He's got fluid hips." God that sh-t is gay.

Posted

He Has a Great power plant

 

He may not have blah blah blah but he's a football player

 

 

OH yeah and my favorite "he's a house with no furniture"

Posted

My most hated is adding an "a" in front of players names, as in "at 27 you starting thinking about a John Doe or a Englebert Humperdink". I don't see the point in saying "a" when you could just say the player's name.

 

Bah: MattyT beat me to it.

Posted

"Value" is the most retarded concept every created in the draft. These experts come up with a number where they think a player ought to be drafted. This concept assumes 1) teams can choose when they pick, or 2) that teams should be trading down because they don't want to be accused of "reaching", and 3) that GM's give a rat's a$$.

 

If your team has a need and you pick the perfect player, who cares if you reached for him? What matters is how that player contributes. No one talks about how much of a reach a player was years down the road. It's just an meaningless invented concept to get fans worked up over.

 

PTR

Posted
"Value" is the most retarded concept every created in the draft. These experts come up with a number where they think a player ought to be drafted. This concept assumes 1) teams can choose when they pick, or 2) that teams should be trading down because they don't want to be accused of "reaching", and 3) that GM's give a rat's a$$.

 

If your team has a need and you pick the perfect player, who cares if you reached for him? What matters is how that player contributes. No one talks about how much of a reach a player was years down the road. It's just an meaningless invented concept to get fans worked up over.

 

PTR

And and a very convenient explanation as to why the prognosticator in question got the pick wrong. IF the team doesn't take who he said they would, then gets off the hook by calling their pick a reach. Now the attention is focused on the team doing something wrong, instead of him not getting the pick right.

 

Of course, all of the above is not applicable if we are talking about the NY Jets. (ahem, Gholston, cough)

Posted

Not really a prospect cliche but for going on three years now I hate hearing how the San Diego Chargers "have no real need" they're just drafting for depth players again this year .

 

No real need except some heart and balls, f***ing 4th best team in the AFC forever but they have no holes my ass.

Posted

"quick twitch athlete"

"tightly wound"

"more quick than fast"

"tweener"

"polished"

"upside"

"high ceiling"

"late bloomer"

"boom or bust potential"

Posted
As another draft is nearly upon us, I'm reminded of those hilarious generic player evaluations we hear every year.

Some of my favorites:

 

"plays with great leverage"

 

"pursues to the ball well"

 

"has all the physical tools" (my all-time favorite)

 

Other favorites fellow draftniks?

 

My all time favorite vanilla evaluation is "this guy is a freak." When I read that, I think the guy could be an absolute bust more then if he was not labled a "freak." Example?....Please see Vernon Davis's average NFL performance early in his career, (although certainly not a bust yet,) he was a major "freak" coming out of college!

×
×
  • Create New...